White or Black?

This posting will present an alternative to the “supermassive black hole” model, which requires that the mass of millions of stars to reside in a black hole located in the cores of most galaxies.

Skip first Post
If you are already familiar with the observational evidence that produced the belief in supermassive black holes, you could save some time by skipping the first posting which is a short summary. However, if you are an expert on the observational evidence of Supermassive black holes and you find I have made an omission or blunder, please correct me.

Black hole introduction
The following link is one of the more interesting overviews of black holes, both “small” and “super”. The primary focus in this posting is on supermasive black holes. Just so that we are all on the same page, I agree with all the observations associated with the supermassive black hole, I am not agreement with the corresponding explanations used to account for the observations.

http://hubblesite.org/explore_astron...les/index.html

Evidence of Supermassive Black holes
First, Let’s first review the observational evidence indicating the existence of a super massive black hole residing in the cores of galaxies.

1. Energy production from quasars
2. Energy production near the nucleus of galaxies
3. Stars with High velocities near the center of galaxies.
4. Large amount of dust and debris near the center of galaxies.

The following describes in more detail the four observations listed above.

Energy production from Quasars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasars
Quasars are young galaxies. They produce hundreds to thousands of times the energy of a present day galaxy. The energy production is always intense but also varies in intensity with a periodicity that lasts days, weeks, and even decades. Overall, a graph of the energy production of a quasar looks somewhat like a seismograph of a decades long earthquake.

The discovery of the magnitude and quick variations of the energy production from quasars caught everyone by surprise. The model at the time model did not predict such prodigious amounts of energy production, nor the erratic, (but not random) pattern. Some kind of explanation had to be made.

The solution that has stuck is that of matter falling into a super massive black hole. It was proposed that as matter falls towards the super massive black hole, it collides with other matter and this collision produces energy. The fluctuations become the result of variations in the amount and duration of matter falling towards the hole. The small size of a black hole is in line with observation, helping to account for the quick variations in energy production observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

Energy Production near Cores
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus
The energy production is greatest near the core of many galaxies. Generally, the higher the red shift, the greater the numbers of active galactic nuclei. This would fall in line with the explanation used for the energy production from quasars. It would be argued that the transition from quasar to galaxy is a result of a loss of sufficient mass falling into the black hole.

High velocities
The observation of stars in rapid motion near the core has led to the conclusion that some kind of tremendous mass was keeping these stars in residence near the core. This was the apparent verification that the supermassive black hole model was correct. The magnitude of the required mass is staggering, the super massive black hole in our galaxy has been calculated to have the mass equivalent of over 2.6 million stars like our sun. (While this is a large figure, it still represents a fraction of the more than 100,000 million stars found in a typical galaxy)

Dust and particles
If in falling matter was producing energy, the radiant energy would push back some of the in falling matter. This would result in a kind of balance point between where matter is falling in by gravity and matter is being pushed out by radiant and kinematic influences. There would be a kind of accumulation or concentration of dust and gas near the core, and this is observed.

Are there more observations?
If any readers have any additional reasons for believing in the existence of super massive black holes, please post them. I do not what to leave anything out.

Continued...

Snowflake

Why bother changing the super massive black hole model since it seems to work?

There are problems with a super massive black hole model.

1. The Math Problem First lets do some simple math. Using the supermassive black hole model, the amount of mass consumed to produce the energy of a quasar is at least 2 solar masses every year. Using a conservative duration for a quasars existence of 500 million years, the total mass consumed by the supermassive black hole during the quasar phase of a galaxies life would be at least 1,000 million stars. This is more than 300 times the 2 to 3 million stars supposed to be in the core of our own fairly typical galaxy. The discrepancy is worse since there would still be the consumption of stellar quantities of mass after the 500 million years has past and the initial rate of consumption of stars would be higher than 2 solar equivalent mass stars a year during the very early quasar phase.

Compounding the issue is the finding that very young galaxies (observed at high red shifts) already appear to have large supermassive black holes and this would mean that the universe starts off with supermassive black holes, which is argued to provide the driving force for creating galaxies in the first place.

The net result is this, based on the initial starting mass, and the realistic rates of matter consumption, the predicted size of a supermassive black hole is greater than the indicated mass of typical supermassive black holes observed in local or present day galaxies. The numbers do not add up.

2. Source for ongoing star formation. High red shift galaxies appear to have super massive black holes. This would require supermassive black holes to form very early in the universe. This presents a bit of an issue in that the consumption of matter by the black hole so early in the evolution of the galaxy would tend to deplete the core of the galaxy from all matter necessary to form stars near its core after a few billion years. With so many stars already in the super massive hole, where did the stars come from to continue the process for another 10 or more billion years, especially near the core?

3. Unexpected Star Formation. Huge stars only a few hundred million years old have been found near the core. This observation came as a surprise. The close proximity to the core should have pulled the gasses away and prevented the formation of such massive stars. If the core were old how would such young massive stars appear? This is nearly an impossible event near a super massive black hole since the black hole will draw in the vast majority of material into itself, and tidal forces would have ripped apart any large-scale structure necessary to form a star. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center

4. Stability. The earlier large numbers of a super massive black holes form in the Universe, the more unstable the Universe becomes. For example, place some magnetic marbles on a smooth floor, far enough apart that they do not collapse in on themselves. Now continue to place each of them a little closer together. Eventually it will be impossible to place the magnetic marbles any closer together without all of the marbles collapsing into a single group. Requiring super massive black holes to form very early in the universe begins to make the very existence of the Universe problematical; the Universe just wants to collapse back in on itself.

5. Not predicted. The existence of a super massive black hole at the core of a galaxy was not predicted. It was invented after the fact to account for what is observed. In fact, before these objects were proposed to exist, it was believed by many that black holes would collapse and leave our universe. This idea was supported by the observation that when the energy concentration in one location increased enough, causing matter to break down to quarks, the matter disappeared. Once the pressure dropped, the quasars reformed and matter reappeared.

6. Depends on Unknown Physics. No one knows what a supermassive black hole is. There is no testable physics available to determine the structure, nor can any hunches be tested to confirm any kind of hypothetical model. (Smaller black holes may have some testable physical characteristics, such as “ringing”), Stating that supermassive black holes “just are” does not establish them as a fact, it is a hunch inferred by gravitational interaction with the assumption that gravity is constant everywhere, all the time. Any model based on a hunch should be held with suspicion and is worthy of reconsideration. Especially if inconsistencies with observation are observed.

Are there more problems?
If any readers have any additional reasons for questioning the existence of super massive black holes, please post them. I do not what to leave anything out.

Super Massive Black hole Model dead?
None of the above issues kill the black hole model since additional explanations or “fixes” can be proposed to keep the model. Add dark matter, add some dark energy and leave the unresolved issues dependent on additional observation, and all is fine again. (If someone proposed such kinds of explanations for proposed relationships in the ATM forum, he or she would be attacked mercilessly.)

At least question
The supermassive black hole model produces inconsistencies. I realize that not having the answer to every issue a model poses does not necessarily negate the model. At the very least, it is hoped the reader will realize that super massive black holes are not a fact of science. Supermassive black holes represent a very imaginative explanation or hypothesis based on the extrapolation of locally established relationships.

To be continued…

Snowflake

If you had the date of your demise, would you still worry ?

__________________
Thank God for magnetism.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Hi Jim

The still open questions you refer to are important and I am working on presenting material that addresses the issues as separate postings with respect to my proposed Geometric Expansion Model. (Formally called the Uniform Expansion Model).

However, the topic of that post was on observational evidence that the effect of gravity varied radially within galaxies and over temporal measures of time. All most all the issues Nereid posed were not directly pertinent to the topic of the posting.

Snowflake

I wish I kinew what this thread was about.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Hi Captain Swoop

Thank you for saying

“I wish I knew what this thread was about.”

This thread will be presenting an alternative to the hypothesis that super massive black holes reside in the cores of galaxies.

Snowflake

Is it mass or gravity?

All the observed characteristics of supermassive black holes can be resolved if the effect of gravity decreased with increasing distance from the core of a galaxy. Consider the physical ramifications if the effect of gravity were 100 times greater near the core of a galaxy.
1. The high velocities or “bee hive” like description of the motion of stars near the core would correspond exactly to what is observed. Instead of a supermassive black hole causing the stars near the core to move quickly, it is the mutual gravitational interaction of all the stars to each around a highly curved region of spacetime.
2. It would take less mass to form a star, and the stars would form and evolve more quickly, resulting in the increased energy production observed.
3. The increased effect of gravity would greatly accelerate the evolutionary process of stars, thereby producing the dust and gasses observed near the core.
4. If the effect of gravity varied over cosmological measures of time, and not just from the cores of galaxies outwards, this would also account for the energy production observed in quasars. An increased effect of gravity in the past would further accelerate the evolution of stars.

All the observational evidence of a supermassive black hole can be accounted for if the effect of gravity were to vary radially from the cores of galaxies and if the effect of gravity varied over Cosmological measures of time. .

Objections to changing gravity
Stating that the effect of gravity varies over measures of historical time is going to wrinkle the faces of anyone familiar with General Relativity. Gravity conforms to a very specific geometry, based on very distinct and specific relationships of distance and time. It is highly unlikely that such historical changes in the effect of gravity is possible, and some bozo posting some claim that it does is certainly no reason to consider fundamental issues in physics. Tough.

Curvature or Effect
Gravity is a dynamic relationship that I often refer to as an “effect”. Locally the effect of gravity is mathematically described by a curvature to spacetime. This distortion of spacetime masks the true dynamic relationship that explains gravity. The dynamic basis for gravity will be explained in another separate posting which unites the fundamental forces of nature using a multi dimensional geometric expansion of spacetime.

However, locally gravity can be described as an effect that is tied to the curvature of spacetime.

Gravity is a relationship defined by the curvature of spacetime and the reaction to mass to this curvature. The greater the curvature of spacetime, the greater the effect of gravity. The greater the mass, the greater the curvature imposed on spacetime and the greater the corresponding effect of gravity.

Visualization of spacetime and General Relativity
It is in some ways unfortunate that the term “curvature” has been so universally accepted as describing the altering of spacetime around an object. It would be more accurate to imagine a lattice like structure existing in spacetime that becomes distorted and “denser” near a mass. It is as if the existence of mass in spacetime causes spacetime to be compressed outwards thereby compressing the fabric of spacetime according to a very specific geometry. Increased curvature of spacetime actually corresponds to a “denser” or more compact region of spacetime. But using the term “denser” seems to imply that spacetime is like matter, which could be confusing. (There is an equivalence between matter and spacetime, but this is a bit beyond the intent of this post.)

The problem
The effect of gravity is proposed to vary radially from the core of a galaxy outwards. The effect of gravity is proposed to also vary over historical measures. What kind of model for the Universe would be compatible with these kinds of stipulations? What would cause the curvature or density of spacetime to be greater in the past? What would cause the curvature or density of spacetime to vary radially across a galaxy?

To be continued…

Snowflake

The Geometric Expansion Model predicts White Geysers

Different Expansion Models
Many of you know that I assert that the expansion of spacetime is truly uniform; meaning that the spacetime around the atom also expands with the expansion of the Universe. The Mainstream model stops the expansion at “gravitationally bound” galaxies, or somewhere between galaxies.

Labels and Acronyms
Since the Mainstream expansion model imposes limits to the expansion, it will be called the Limited Expansion Model, LEM. Since the proposed uniform expansion theory conforms to a specific geometry, it will be called the Geometric Expansion Model, GEM.

The Goal
The primary goal of this posting is to describe a model that allows gravity to vary radial within a galaxy and historically. Describing how our Universe evolved from the perspective of the Geometric Expansion Model should do this.

The expanding balloon
Introductory explanations of the expansion of the universe often include the following analogy; a penny is taped to an expanding balloon, with the penny representing a fixed sized galaxy and the expanding balloon representing the expansion of spacetime. (Some may prefer the raisins in the expanding dough analogy). Applying the balloon analogy to the GEM (Geometric Expansion Model) would mean that the galaxies are drawn on the balloon.

Super Duper Remote
Imagine having an “Eye of God perspective” and looking at the expanding universe. Imagine having a Super Duper Remote Control that allowed you to fast forward and reverse how the Universe expands. While in fast-forward we would see the universe expand, along with the galaxies, according to the proposed model. While in reverse mode, the Universe would be seen as shrinking with each galaxy collapsing into what appears to be point like locations. Play with the Super duper Remote and run the Universe in fast forward and fast reverse over and over and it becomes apparent. Galaxies are locations where matter and spacetime streams into the Universe.

White Geysers
This perspective changes how we look at galaxies. Instead of a supermassive black hole located in the center of a galaxy that is sucking up massive amounts of matter, there is a point like region that is spewing out mass and spacetime. The core of the galaxy is a white geyser.

White holes
The following links describe white holes, which is analogous to my white geyser model but I changed the name since the term “hole” is a bit misleading. I thought the readers might like to see that this idea of a white hole is not just some idea invented by me. Hawkins even wrote a paper on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...le_030917.html
http://math-science-tit-bits.blogspo...99798-you.html

The last link leads to a YouTube presentation by Professor Kaku. Some of his expressed ideas are shared in the course of developing the Geometric Expansion Model.

To be continued…
Snowflake

(my emphasis)

For avoidance of doubt, all the questions I asked were tied - explicitly - to the ATM ideas - explicitly - presented in that thread.

Once you have presented reasons why they are not pertinent, then any BAUT member may ask further questions, or challenge your response (re pertinence), explicitly using the material you post, for example.

At least, that's my understanding of how the BAUT rule on the ATM section works ...

References please.References please.References please.What is the range of estimated mass consumption of the SMBH in quasars?

What is the range of estimated mass of stars, gas, and dust in "the core" of "typical galaxies"?

What is the estimated range of durations of "the very early quasar phase"?

What mechanisms have been proposed - in the standard literature - for mass transport to galaxy "cores"? Which of these mechanisms are you familiar with?References please.

What is the estimated distribution of galaxy masses, both in the local universe and of those observed at high z?
Please re-present your case, using distributions (to be found in the relevant literature) rather than global averages.

This implies that you should be able to reproduce the motions of the stars in our galactic center. Please do so. Here's the UCLA Galactic Center Group's website with images and some discussion, and links to all their papers. In particular, Ghez et al. 2005 discusses one of the most recent orbital determinations. The stellar orbits are perfectly Keplarian, assuming a central mass of ~4x10⁶ Solar Masses (greatest source of error: the uncertainty in distance, which is ~16%).

Can you produce a better fit to the directly imaged orbits?

The quote I gave at the top is broad enoguh, so you should also be able to explain the results of Ghez et al. 2003 which describes significant IR variations of Sgr A* on 40 minute time scales. Do you understand what that means about the physical size of the source? How does your model explain such rapid timescale variations and also account for near invisibility at other wavelengths?

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Hi Nereid

The Math Problem

You questioned the math problem in which I assert that there is nowhere near enough mass in a supermassive black hole. You are right to question, if the math is right; then there is a problem with the supermassive black hole model. Specifically you asked for references.

There are essentially three figures that I had to find. One is the rate of matter consumption necessary to produce the amount of energy observed, the second is the duration of that consumption, and the other is the initial size the supermassive black hole starts off with in the Universe.

Rate
The stated rate of mass consumption is somewhere between 2 to 10 solar masses a year. It is a figure available in the Wikipedia link I provided. It is also a figure available as a goggle search.

Duration
The duration of the quasar phase I estimated from the red shift distribution of quasars. I used the following assumptions.
1. A high red shift quasar marks the initial starting point and lower red shift quasar marks the ending point in quasars energy consumption.
2. Using this total spread in the red shift to determine the duration of energy production of a quasar would be unrealistic since the rates of energy consumption would be expanded by the initial size of the quasars, based on the assumption that less massive quasars would consume energy or matter at a slower rate than more massive quasars.
3. I looked at the bell shaped distribution of quasars and decided that staying strictly near the top of the curve would result in a conservative estimate describing the duration of the quasar phase of a galaxy. The data curve for quasar distribution according to red shift can be found on the following link. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503679 (it's figure 3 on page 29).
4. I uses a red shift factor range of only 1/2 with a peak near a red shift factor of 2. This gives a quasar duration from a z of 1.75 to 2.25. This is very conservative and a range of 1.5 or even 2 would be a better estimate. (Which would magnify the math problem to as much as an additional factor of 10 more than the current magnitude error of 100).
5. Once this red shift duration range was conservatively estimated it was necessary to correlate this range to an interval of Cosmological time. This is model dependent. The following link provides a number of Cosmological Calculators http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html

Choose your own model, any of the current mainstream models all predict an interval of time greater than 500 million years. For example, with a Ho of 71, Flat, with omega mass of .26, with the two ranges of z of 1.75 to 2.25 the duration of time is 800 million years. In my post I only used 500 million years, so the magnitude of the problem is even greater than I stated but I was not sure what model one might try to use.

The initial starting mass of the supermassive black hole does not even have to be included to reveal that something is wrong with the current supermassive black hole model. There is not enough mass within the supermassive black hole. The math does not add up.

Snowflake

Hi Parejkoj

Thank you for your question and links. The links you provided are helpful and they include current information.

The orbits are required to be Keplerian due to the geometry of the model.

Please note that the proposed model does still have mass at the cores of galaxies but that mass is steaming into a highly curved region of spacetime. The gravitational effect of the in steaming mass is magnified by the intense curvature of spacetime near the core. You can either assume that the effect of gravity is greater, or that there is additional unseen mass that explains the intense gravitational interaction.

Star formation problem
One of your links also describes the issue I mentioned earlier about the observation of star formation near the cores of galaxies, I have quoted the closing comments in the abstract you provided a link to

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJ...620..744G

”Unfortunately, alternative theories for producing young stars, or old stars that look young, in close proximity to a central supermassive black hole are all also somewhat problematic. Understanding the apparent youth of stars in the Sgr A* cluster, as well as the more distant He I emission line stars, has now become one of the major outstanding issues in the study of the Galactic center. “

This issue is not a problem for the proposed model since the intense curvature of spacetime near the core causes the formation of stars to occur more quickly and with less mass than is currently assumed. The cores of galaxies are where new matter and spacetime are entering the Universe.

Snowflake

Variation in Curvature
One consequence in applying the Geometric Expansion Model to the Universe is that the variation in the curvature of spacetime becomes the result of a logical process. The increased effect of gravity in the past corresponds to a dense or more highly curved region of spacetime. The variation in the effect of gravity from the core outwards corresponds to new and younger regions of spacetime entering into our Universe according to a specific geometrical relationship. The increased effect of gravity near the core correlates to the increased curvature of spacetime that would be expected if spacetime and matter were flowing into our universe from the centers of galaxies. The physical description of the model corresponds directly to what is observed.

The first 4 characteristics used to require a supermassive black hole correlate to a white hole in the GEM
1. Energy production from quasars
2. Energy production near the nucleus of galaxies
3. Stars with High velocities near the cores of galaxies.
4. Large amount of dust and debris near the cores of galaxies.

Energy production of Quasar
The Geometric Expansion Model requires the effect of gravity to be greater in the past. I have commented and explained this previously and have shown that the energy production of a quasar is simply accelerated stellar physics.
Quasars without super massive black holes

Energy production near cores of galaxies
The intense energy production observed from the cores of galaxies is again the result of accelerated stellar physics. Since mass and spacetime enter our Universe from the cores of galaxies, the spacetime near the core is comparatively young, which corresponds to an increased effect of gravity.

Stars with High velocities near the cores of galaxies
Since the effect of gravity is greater near the core of a galaxy, the corresponding velocities have to be greater.

Large amounts of Dust and Gas
Since matter and spacetime have entered into the Universe from the core, it is logical to observe the greatest amount of matter near the core.

Is it matter or is it gravity?
The primary difference between the supermassive black hole model and the white hole model can be seen as choosing which of two fundamental properties of nature need to change. Either one can assume there is additional mass near the core or one can assume that the effect of gravity is greater. Either assumption results in at least the same observations.

So the proposed Geometric Expansion Model gets rid of supermassive black holes. But just replacing one model for another is not merited unless there are issues with the present supermassive black hole model.

Is the White Hole model a better model?
In order for the White Hole model to be correct, or at least viable, the observations at the core have to match predictions that result from applying the Geometric Expansion Model, GEM. The model should also eliminate or reduce the issues described previously with the super massive back hole model without introducing too many more new problems in its place.

So far the model produces the same observational effects, Does it resolve the issues associated with the Supermassive Black Hole Model?


More to come…

Snowflake

Which orbits: yours or the ones computed by Ghez et al.? Have you computed stellar orbits around your "greater gravity" model or not? If not, I have nothing more to say to you and your whole idea is out the window. This is a pretty simple question: does your model reproduce Keplarian orbits for the stars in orbit around SgrA*, including periapsis passes of ~45 and 90 AU for two of the stars? If so, show us.

Well then, you should be able to compute the orbital parameters for the stars that orbit SgrA*. And you should also be able to tell me why there is IR variablity on ~40 minute timescales at the precise location of SgrA*.

One thing at a time. Answer my questions above first.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

It seems that I was not sufficiently clear; allow me to clarify.

When I ask for "references" I mean papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, arXiv preprints, or papers or posters presented at relevant conferences, symposia, or meetings.

For avoidance of doubt, Wikipedia does not count. However, some Wikipedia articles include citations, and often those citations are adequate. Unfortunately, the particular Wikipedia page you cited contains the following, in large letters, across the top:If you do not have these 'Nereid' references (shall we say), then please say so, and I can ask different questions.
This model seems to assume that the average quasar's energy output changes but slowly over its lifetime, that 'once a quasar, always a quasar'.

It seems that your model does not consider the possibility that a quasar's energy output may vary wildly - equivalent of 10 sols per annum for 10,000 years say, then go quiet (0.001 sols pa, say) for the next 10 million years.

Or any other variation.

Perhaps I did not understand the model.

Would you please clarify? What assumptions does your model make concerning the constancy of any particular quasar's energy output?

Also, I asked several other direct, pertinent questions, about the ATM ideas presented, as presented.

Here they are again:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What is the range of estimated mass of stars, gas, and dust in "the core" of "typical galaxies"?

What is the estimated range of durations of "the very early quasar phase"?

What mechanisms have been proposed - in the standard literature - for mass transport to galaxy "cores"? Which of these mechanisms are you familiar with?
References please.

What is the estimated distribution of galaxy masses, both in the local universe and of those observed at high z?


Please re-present your case, using distributions (to be found in the relevant literature) rather than global averages.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Please answer these questions.

Hi parejkoj

You asked stated the following
Have you computed stellar orbits around your "greater gravity" model or not? If not, I have nothing more to say to you and your whole idea is out the window.

I briefly addressed this issue, but I should have stated more.

The gravitational relationship across a galaxy is a hyperbolic function. The peak occurs near the core which complicates the ability to establish certain specific relationships near the core. Predicting the necessary mass and the necessary increased effect of gravity to establish the necessary gravitational relationships required to maintain Keplerian motion becomes a matter of picking what is necessary.

For example, If the incoming mass at the core is 3 million times smaller than the assumed 3 million super black hole assumed to be at the core, making the mass simply that of a normal star, and the effect of gravity is 3 million times greater, the net effect is the same. It is no different than the Mainstream model which figures that there must be a 2 to 4 million solar mass black hole residing in that location in order to preserve the Keplerian order observed.

(Complicating the issue is that stars near the cores of galaxies would be smaller than assumed since an increased effect of gravity and mass would require less mass to form a star.)

This is a very unsatisfying answer, reduce the mass in the core to a reasonable figure, and then increase the effect of gravity the same proportional amount to produce Keplerian relationships is an after the fact fix. (Which is no different than the mainstream model that assumes that there must be a 2 to 4 million solar mass at the core since that is the mass necessary to keep Keplerian relationships valid.


(Where the model is more interesting to apply is to consider the effect of gravity as it varies radially outwards from the core of the galaxy, I only mention it now because the model predicts a variance from Keplerian motion across a galaxy, and the predicted geometry of the model corresponds quite nicely to MOND. Further discussion of this is off topic and will be described in more detail later as a separate thread. I only mention it now since orbital motion was the focus of your question. The topic of this thread is that of the nature of the core).

The 40 minute variations in energy output that I believe you referred to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup...aMovieLp.shtml
are also compatible with the proposed model since the energy output is from small stars near the core that are either collapsing onto other stars forming near the incoming jet, or it is the result of a micro star blowing up. It does not have to be the result of matter falling towards a black hole.

Snowflake

What does the core look like?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/

The Link that parejkoj provided is a good one.

Does the core look like a region of spacetime in which matter is falling in or does it look like a region of spacetime that looks like streams of matter and spacetime are entering our universe?


Notice that multiple series of stars are stringed along slightly curved paths which are interconnected by gaseous threads. This kind of formation would result if streams of matter entered our universe and intense gravitational effects drew the gases back in on themselves, forming beads of stars along a gaseous thread.

Snowflake

No, you haven't. I have seen no actual calculations or models for stellar orbits listed anywhere above.

Then "pick what is necessary." Give me some actual numbers that will give stars the observed orbits, and show that they produce such orbits.

Oh, rly? I can has orbital parameters?

Do you understand what a perfectly Keplarian orbit is, and does your "model" actually reproduce Keplarian orbits for stars in orbit around SgrA* or not? If no, why not. If yes, then actually demonstrate it. If you cannot actually demonstrate it (and by demonstrate, I mean equations and numerical predictions, or a working computer model), then you've got nothing worth bothering about. This is the last time I will bother to ask.

I'm not talking about that right now. If you can't reproduce the stellar orbits around SgrA*, then you've got nothing. It really is a very simple observation (well, the observed orbits are simple: the actual observation itself required AO on Keck, which isn't so simple...), and should not be too hard to reproduce for a good model. If you've got no such model, and can't be bothered to produce one, then you are not even "not even wrong"...

Oh rly? I can has calculations? You are correct about one thing: it does not have to be the result of matter falling onto a black hole. But if you claim to have a viable alternative, I'd like to see something more than handwaving, and you haven't provided anything.

Again, you have many claims, but nothing to back them up. Give me some actual analytic, numerical or computational predictions, or you go in the bit bucket.

Just so you know, I'm giving you a much easier problem than Nereid is giving you. Reproducing Keplarian orbits for a dozen or so stars all orbiting a common point should be trivial compared to understanding observations regarding the evolution of quasars, the quasar luminosity function and the relation between galaxy and quasar evolution.

You should be grateful.

And you should also be quantitative.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Hi Nereid

You said
Question on Average energy output of Quasar
This model seems to assume that the average quasar's energy output changes but slowly over its lifetime, that 'once a quasar, always a quasar'.

It seems that your model does not consider the possibility that a quasar's energy output may vary wildly - equivalent of 10 sols per annum for 10,000 years say, then go quiet (0.001 sols pa, say) for the next 10 million years.

Or any other variation.

Perhaps I did not understand the model.

Would you please clarify? What assumptions does your model make concerning the constancy of any particular quasar's energy output?

The assumptions are based on what is observed to be properties of a quasar, As I noted in the first post on this thread, the energy production is very erratic, but despite this energy variation, there is an overall average. This averaged figure I used is representative of what is found in the literature,

http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Quasars.html one per year

http://www.answers.com/topic/quasar?cat=technology 10 to 1000 per year
Quote from second source
“To create a luminosity of 1040 W (the typical brightness of a quasar), a super-massive black hole would have to consume the material equivalent of 10 stars per year. The brightest known quasars devour 1000 solar masses of material every year. “

If anyone has a reference to an original paper, rather than these summary sources, please help. There are more encyclopedic references with the same general figures, but Nereid’s request for an original paper is valid.

Duration
Quasars also evolve over time, reducing their energy output to that of a standard galaxy. I was conservative and did not assume the very high rates of energy production observed from the earliest quasars. I was also conservative in estimating the duration of a quasar existence of just 500 million years.

What is the actual mass at the core if not billions of stars?
You then re-asked the following
What is the range of estimated mass of stars, gas, and dust in "the core" of "typical galaxies"

This is a good question, it touches a number of issues. As one approaches the core, the curvature of spacetime increases dramatically. This increased curvature of spacetime correlates to an increased effect of gravity. This curvature can be so great that a streaming mass of just 1 star could look like that of 3 million stars located in a singularity.

Increased relative G
It is just Newton’s gravitational law. Ignoring for now the distance separation between two objects, the force between two objects is the product of the Masses and the gravitational constant. The expanding metric requires that the Gravitational Constant to be constant in an absolute reference frame, but from a relative reference frame it is not. We are watching the relative relationship between the two objects near the core. From a relative perspective we can say it is the relative gravitational constant that is varying over time and it is greater near the core. So if one is trying to balance the force between two objects using Newtons Law of Gravity one can either assume that the mass of the core is increased enough to account for the observed orbital relationship (2 to 4 million stars), or one can assume that the gravitational constant is greater by 2 to 4 million times.

Smaller Stars
The above example of increasing the relative gravitational constant 2 to 4 million times near the core is was exaggerated to make a point. The actual increase in the relative gravitational constant would be much less. An increase effect of gravity near the core would result in much less mass to form a star. The proportional reduction in the mass of the orbiting star around the core would correlate to a proportional reduction in the mass of matter at the core.

What is actually at the core?
This I do not know, I can only speculate. It is a bit like asking what happens at the center of a supermassive black hole. What I guess is happening is that once spacetime is sufficiently curved or “dense”, the quantum variations in spacetime (due to the incremental expansion of spacetime) become larger than the structure of spacetime defined by the plank length. I believe that this relationship may be fixed over time, or may alter over measures of cosmic time but it is a relatively constant in terms of its size now.

You then asked

What is the estimated range of durations of "the very early quasar phase"?

I would say that the very first 1,000 years of the Universe would characterize the early quasar phase of the Universe. In an 8 billion year old universe the effect of gravity would be 1,000 million times greater than is presently observed across the entire universe. This would mean that any matter “blown” out from the core would still be subject to extreme gravitational effects, accelerating the evolutionary process of stars.

Stars popping like popcorn
Stars would evolve so quickly that they would become supernovas in just a few years. The increased density of stars that would exist at the time would be susceptible to induced chain reaction supernovas, once one blew up its neighboring stars would blow up. This is what causes the energy fluctuations in quasars.

You then asked

What mechanisms have been proposed - in the standard literature - for mass transport to galaxy "cores"? Which of these mechanisms are you familiar with?

This question seems to imply you have something in mind. The primary mainstream mechanism for transporting matter to the core of galaxies is gravitation. Also why am I trying to defend a model I do not agree with?

As far as I am concerned, it is impossible for the super massive model to still have any kind of matter left in its core after 13 billion years of prodigious consumption. The numbers do not add up. I have looked, and cannot find any “standard literature ” that does a proper accounting of the mass exchange involved. Can you?

Mass transport away from Core
What is a more important question is what mechanism transports matter away from a supermassive black hole? In my model, there are two mechanisms for transporting matter away from the cores of galaxies. Repeated micro stellar explosions near the core, (which are observed) would disperse matter away from the core. The second mechanism is the expansion of spacetime itself. Just as all the galaxies are “carried” by the expansion of spacetime, stars in the core are carried outwards from the core with the expansion of spacetime.

I said
Compounding the issue is the finding that very young galaxies (observed at high red shifts) already appear to have large supermassive black holes and this would mean that the universe starts off with supermassive black holes, which is argued to provide the driving force for creating galaxies in the first place.

which you then said,
References please.
Evidence that large high red shift galaxies had large black holes
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.442..786G

http://www.gemini.edu/index.php?opti...sk=view&id=245
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A%26A...436..805M
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture01330.html
(This last link has the very early supermassive black holes with a mass of 1,000 million stars!!! Talk about a math problem with the supermassive black holes!!!)

I should slightly correct my earlier quote in blue mentioned above. . Some of the referenced observations have the beginning of the universe start with moderate sized black holes which very quickly become supermassive. The point is still the same. The very early formations of supermassive black holes increases the amount of matter existing in the supermassive black hole. That initial amount further exacerbates the math problem. There should be more matter in the supermassive black hole than what is predicted by gravitational interaction.

You then asked the following

What is the estimated distribution of galaxy masses, both in the local universe and of those observed at high z?

Please re-present your case, using distributions (to be found in the relevant literature) rather than global averages.

I will try to answer the above questions if you answer the following.

1. Could you please explain why you are asking these questions?
2. Be specific, what issues are you looking for? State the question like this, “If this is the case (reference given) then we would expect to see this, based on the following assumptions, then list the assumptions.
3. How would those issues pertain to the topic of whether a white geyser or supermassive black hole resides in the cores of galaxies?

If you do not respond to the questions it is ok. You are actively involved in a lot of discussions, time is precious and I will understand.

Thank you

Snowflake

Hi parejkoj

Thank you for response , you said,

Just so you know, I'm giving you a much easier problem than Nereid is giving you. Reproducing Keplarian orbits for a dozen or so stars all orbiting a common point should be trivial compared to understanding observations regarding the evolution of quasars, the quasar luminosity function and the relation between galaxy and quasar evolution.

You should be grateful.

And you should also be quantitative.

I honestly am grateful.

Lets consider this following example

Lets start off with a star in orbital motion around a very large mass. The motion conforms to Keplerian motion, which is the result of the balance of two forces, Newtons Law of Gravity and Centrifugal force.

Gravitational Force = Centrifugal Force
F = G x Mstar x Mlargemass / R^2 = Mstar x Velocity of star ^2 / R


Now lets say we look into another location in the Universe where G is greater with the same masses and the same separation in distance and the same laws of physics are in effect, except for the change in the relative measure of G.
What happens?
Keplerian relationships are still maintained but everything appears to be moving faster. An increased effect of gravity requires an increased Centrifugal force or additional velocity to counteract the increased gravitational effect.

Now if one did not know that this region of spacetime had an increased relative gravitational constant, and one thought they knew the mass of the star, then one would erroneously conclude that the M Largemass had to be greater in order to preserve Keplerian relationships, or the balance between Gravitational effect and Centrifugal forces would no longer exist. As the relative gravitational constant increased there would be a corresponding increase in the error of the Large Mass.

This issue is actually more complicated. For example if the gravitational constant is greater, the energy production of the star is greater, so it takes less mass to form a star. This effect produces an effect in the opposite direction. As the mass of the orbiting star gets smaller the size of the large mass decreases, if Keplerian relationships are to be preserved.

The other factor which exaggerates the size of the Large Mass is the expansion of spacetime. As stated in the model, it is proposed that not only is matter streaming into the Universe from the cores of galaxies, so is the structure of spacetime. The curvature or structure of spacetime is denser near the core and it expands outwards. The streams of Light from the core of a galaxy would be expanded outwards as it left the core

What this means is that a distance measure observed near the core is actually closer than it appears. This effect would cause an increase in the mass of the supermassive black hole, or a reduction in the assumed mass in the white geyser.

If the radial distance of a star to the core were reduced by a half, the corresponding mass assumed to reside in the supermassive black hole would be 2 times more, or if one assumes there is a doubling image distance as light leave the core, the assumed mass residing in the core of the galaxy is reduced by a half. Either way Keplerian relationships are the basis for the prediction celestial mechanics.

Snowflake

[quote]This question seems to imply you have something in mind. The primary mainstream mechanism for transporting matter to the core of galaxies is gravitation. Also why am I trying to defend a model I do not agree with? [\quote]

I see this as Nereid trying to find out if and how you understand the Mainstream model to work. If you don't understand the mainstream says then how can you have a disagreement with it?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Hi Captain Swoop

You said,

I see this as Nereid trying to find out if and how you understand the Mainstream model to work. If you don't understand the mainstream says then how can you have a disagreement with it?

In the very first posting I tried to describe the current or mainstream model. As you point out it makes no sense to propose an alterntative model unless one is familiar with the preent model.

However, how am I to respond to an issue someone thinks is important when I do not know what the issue the person is thinking of? Mass transport can come in various forms. There is the radiant energy which presses gasses outwards, which I have already mentioned. Is Nereid referring to cosmic jets? Or is Nereid referring to the inherent gravitational instability of three or mass systems? Or is Nereid referring to some other theory? Have I addressed the issue with my model of expanding spacetime carrying stars outwards from the core?

And this leads to an issue to which I am guilty of. Diverting the topic away from the issue at hand. I have presented logical arguments questioning the validity of the Supermassive Black hole model. There is strong observational evidence this model is wrong. I am trying to provide an alternative model. This alternative model is a direct result of allowing the Expansion of Space to be truly uniform, as previously described.

Snowflake

You have not given me actual numbers. Without those numbers your "model" is utterly irrelevant.

Let me state this one more time, just incase you didn't understand the first time. And this is the last time I will do so, then you go in the bit bucket. And I'll say it loudly, clearly and concisely:

BE QUANTITATIVE!

If, as you claim, increasing G at the center of the galaxy is all that is required, then tell me what value of G will produce the orbits seen by Ghez et al. I don't want paragraphs talking about how complicated it is, I don't want to hear about the changes this causes in stars, I don't want to hear about what it does to spacetime. I just want a number. Or two, or three, or however many are actually required to reproduce the observed orbits. That's all. Pretty simple request, really...

Though you probably aren't aware of it, you also need to show (preferably analytically) that the orbits are stable, given that you are implying that G varies as you go out from the center. But that's the hard part. The bit I want in the paragraph above should be the easy part, and until you provide it, I've nothing more to say to you.

Take your time, I can wait.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

snowflakeuniverse, please explain to me how you are not discussing the same topic in three current (and at least one closed) threads.

(Thread timed out)

I have emphasized the points of similarity in these threads (including a direct reference in one to this one).

How is this not a violation of BAUT ATM rules?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Hi parejkoj

Did you read my response to Nereid?

Snowflake

Yes, and nowhere in it did you actually provide numbers or an analytic solution to the problem I have given you. You made a guess as to how much G would need to increase,

but you didn't actually work through the math to show whether that would produce the orbits seen by Ghez et al.

I'm still waiting.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Try this:

* what proportion of galaxies in the local universe (you define 'local' any way you wish) have SMBH in their nuclei?

* are M87, NGC 1068, NGC 566, and Cen A (NGC 5128) quasars?

* what is the ratio of quasars (however you choose to define the term) to galaxies with SMBH in their nuclei, in the local universe?

* how does this ratio vary, with z?

* what is the proportion of galaxies with SMBH in the nuclei that are colliding, or have recently collided, in the local universe?

* how does this proportion vary, with z?

* how much mass is transported to the 'core' of a galaxy during a collision?

* can two SMBH merge?

* what role do bars play, in spiral galaxies, in transporting mass to the 'core' of those galaxies?

That should get you started; when you can answer all those questions - quantitatively, with appropriate uncertainties, and using consistent definitions of key terms - maybe we can take another look at the key items in the OP.